Special leave was moved against a confirmation of the bail order directing the petitioner to produce local sureties due to his association with a Maoist organization. The revision was dismissed.
The criminal revision case is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.261 of 2012
Between:
Lakkaraju Satyanarayana Murthy @ LSN Murthy. … Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
… Respondent
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.261 of 2012
ORDER:
This criminal revision case is filed against order, dated 20.12.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2138 of 2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1681 of 2011 in Crime No.61 of 2010 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cumAdditional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, whereunder and whereby the learned Judge confirmed the order granted in Crl.M.P.No.1681 of 2011 that the petitioner should produce two local sureties.
Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that order of trial Court directing local sureties is not warranted and hence he prays to modify the order.
At the hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the orders of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, the petitioner was directed to produce local sureties, but not outside sureties, because the petitioners is one of the members of Maoist organisation.
It appears that the petitioner failed to produce the local sureties and he produced sureties outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The whole purpose of imposing the condition of producing local sureties is to have the presence or attendance of the petitioner/accused during the trial of the case so that trial of the case can be proceeded without any hindrance.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that in view of the fact that the petitioner is an extremist, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has rightly directed the petitioner to produce the local
sureties so that he may not jump the bail. Therefore, the order under challenge needs no interference, as the discretion exercised by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge is not shown to be arbitrary. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. However, the petitioner is in jail, the police shall file the charge sheet immediately and thereafter the trial Court shall dispose of the case, subject to part heard and old cases in accordance with law.
The criminal revision case is therefore dismissed. As a sequel, Crl.M.P.No.410 of 2012 is also dismissed.
_______________ K.C.BHANU, J
Date: 16.02.2012 ES
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lakkaraju Satyanarayana Murthy @ LSN Murthy
The State of A.P.
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
